Posted: Jul 16, 2013 3:52 am
by GT2211
Collector1337 wrote:
NineBerry wrote:
Collector1337 wrote:Nope. Martin could evade bullets because he was younger? That clearly didn't happen.

Martin wasn't shot in the back. The evidence supports that he was shot while on top of Zimmerman.

Your version of events isn't even plausible.

It's plausible. I don't mean attacked with a gun but a physical attack. Zimmerman storms at Martin. Martin evades the attack, puts Martin down on the ground. Kneels down over him, puts his fist in Zimmerman's face. Then gets up, standing over Zimmerman maybe asking him why he is attacking him. In that moment Zimmerman draws his gun and shoots.

Just because Martin was facing Zimmerman doesn't mean he was still a danger to him. Add to that that one of the forensic experts (the one that had actually done the autopsy) said it was possible that Zimmerman was several feet away when shooting.

And what evidence is there that Zimmerman attacked Martin? Zimmerman is the one with the documented injuries.

If there was evidence that Zimmerman had physically attacked Martin then it would have been in the trial, but there is no such evidence.
I don't believe Zimmerman needed to physically attack him first for him to be considered the initial aggressor.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
Steve wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Blood wrote:


White people are simply in a much better position of manipulating the system to their advantage in any legal situation. They have money, they have connections, they better understand the sham of a legal system we have and how to use it to their advantage.
A white person killing a white person is going to have a much tougher time.

This case didn't even look like it would go trial, until there was pressure from those who saw this as a racial crime. I'd call that "manipulating system."

Would that be the case if a 17 year old white boy had been shot at point blank range? I don't think so. That was part of the foot dragging because Trayvon being black meant he got less attention.

It damn well deserved a trial from the beginning.

If the racial roles were reversed it should not have gone to trial either. Whether it would have is speculation.

There is problem of racial, social and economic judicial inequity in this country, but using this trial as an example is hugely misguided and does not point to the real issues.
I don't know that I agree with this. One of the problems with racial inequality is that in cases like this where the victims are black the cases are more likely to result in acquittals.